Via the Raw Story. Read the whole thing but...
"Sir, we joined the Marine Corps because the Marine Corps has a set of standards and values that is better than that of the civilian sector. And we have gone and changed those values and repealed the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy," the sergeant told Gates during the question and answer session.
"We have not given the Marines a chance to decide whether they wish to continue serving under that. Is there going to be an option for those Marines that no longer wish to serve due to the fact their moral values have not changed?" he asked.
"No," Gates responded. "You'll have to complete your ... enlistment just like everybody else."
This is the truth that no one wants to admit. I stand by earlier posts. The repeal of DADT will get peoples asses kicked and careers ruined. This is an ill conceived policy and the Marine Corps will suffer for it. We will see the gay version of tail hook and it won't be pretty at all.
Sol, I must state that the Sgt has a distinct misunderstanding of his role and status if he joined a branch of the militar because it has "values that [are] better than [those] of the civilian sector." His job is to protect the values of the "civilian sector" and if his values are different than those of the civilian sector, as a whole, then he doesn't believe in the values of this country (including its constitution) and shouldn't have signed a legally binding contract (let alone swearing an oath) indicating that he would do otherwise.
ReplyDeleteGates is right to respond as he did, because the sgt is just being an ass by asking that question.
Additionally, excluding homosexuals from service didn't ensure high moral standards. Tailhook happened, many former COs and XOs can testify to the fact that their heterosexual dalliances ended their careers, the branches see large numbers women being (or getting) pregnant and thus being unavailable to complete their duties (although contraceptives are available and highly effective)...homosexual service members may have their own indiscretions in the future, but I can't imagine it would be an uglier scene than what many fellow-heterosexuals have managed to produce.
ReplyDeleteThe real question is if you want to be booting that homosexual linguist/medic/tech specialist in favor of the criminal history-waivered, gang-affiliated, or simply under-educated grunt. I really don't care about orientation as long as you can KYPIYP. I'm much more concerned about generating an army that accepts lower standards for enlistees while rejecting capable, able candidates on 'moral grounds' without a true moral standing.
"We have not given the Marines a chance to decide whether they wish to continue serving"
ReplyDeleteIn the words of Gene Hackman: We're here to preserve democracy—not to practice it.
You don't get a choice, you signed away your right to make your own choices when you enlisted. If the officers appointed over you say work with that person, you better do it.
point remains. this will not be an 'easy' thing.
ReplyDeletei'm repeating myself but look for the gay tailhook and the ruin of quite a few careers...publicly and privately.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/opinion/16kristof.html?_r=1&ref=nicholasdkristof
ReplyDelete